Baker blog paladin and dragonborn

[Nahat Anoj]

Which is where multiclassing comes in. While I can't say anything about how multiclassing works, and while I'm running Eberron instead of core, I've made a rogue-paladin on essentially this principle. The rogue-paladin darts in to flank a foe, does his sneak attack, and says "Tymora's eye is on you! Catch me if you can!" The marked foe can either attempt to fight the wily rogue-paladin, or suffer the consequences of ignoring him; while it's technically radiant damage, I'd probably describe the cosmetic effects of that damage as bad luck. The marked target ignores the rogue-paladin, strikes at another enemy, stumbles and sprains his ankle in the process.

Paladins do "radiant damage", but in my eyes this is essentially divine power; a paladin of the Blood of Vol inflicts radiant damage, just like a paladin of the Silver Flame. But when the SF paladin makes a divine strike, his blade is wrapped in silvery flame, while when the BoV paladin does the same thing, blood flows from his palm and into the blade, suffusing it with a burning red light. Still "radiant" - but a little more sinister. For Olladra or the Traveler, I have no issue with working bad luck into their radiant effects - purely for cosmetic purposes, of course.

So some gods may not use paladins even though they could; others may use multiclassed paladins instead of pure paladins. Personally, I just wouldn't make a paladin of Ioun - however, if I did, I'd focus on her role as goddess of skill and prophecy, patron of tacticians, perhaps making a warlord-paladin who is guided by prophetic visions to defend those in need.

[EDIT] I just noticed the bit where you said the DDXP paladin was a halfling. Honestly, the idea of the plate-armored paladin of Tymora does seem a little odd to me; again, I think the rogue-paladin is perfect, but the clunky armored paladin is a little odd for her. However, I'd still play the challenge as luck; face the paladin or suffer bad luck that results in the damage.

Thanks, this post was a big help. I think the appearance of "radiant damage" as being deity-dependent is a good way to go. Also, because hitpoints are so abstract, interpreting the hitpoint loss due to Tymora or Avandra withholding luck works for me.

Multiclassing sounds like it would indeed be a good way to go to make "appropriate" paladins for certain gods. I see a Paladin of Gruumsh as having a hefty does of Barbarian, for example.

 

[Xorn]

Got to say, I had really hoped the mark change would involve something more in the spirit of the marking--something like, "You must melee attack your mark by the end of your next turn, or the mark fades."

That's been my own modification--to prevent a situation where the mark can not reach the paladin, because of obstructions, or movement impairing conditions. If a hobgoblin soldier is 5 squares away from the paladin, but slowed, and adjacent to the fighter...

Or say in the dragon fight, the dragon flies out to her isle, and the paladin can't REACH her. Does he have to move his full movement? Does he have to double move? Does he have to jump into the deep water in plate armor? The modifier in the pre-release book is rather open to interpretation, isn't it?

I require anyone marking to melee attack their mark before the end of their next turn, or the mark fades. If you keep applying beatdown (or at least swinging), the target stays marked. Getting away from you offers an OA, or else a Shift and no attack that round to get any distance at all (leaving them in charge range, usually).

I don't know how it will be in the end, but I like the "apply beatdown to draw beatdown" mechanic more than "you must move to engage" as that's just too obtuse an subject to different readings.

 

[Hellcow]

Got to say, I had really hoped the mark change would involve something more in the spirit of the marking--something like, "You must melee attack your mark by the end of your next turn, or the mark fades."

And maybe it does. Have you seen the actual official final wording of the power? If so, where? I'd like to make sure I have it right in MY campaign!

 

[Verys Arkon]

Got to say, I had really hoped the mark change would involve something more in the spirit of the marking--something like, "You must melee attack your mark by the end of your next turn, or the mark fades."

And maybe it does. Have you seen the actual official final wording of the power? If so, where? I'd like to make sure I have it right in MY campaign!

I think Xorn is disapointed in the house-rule text appended to the Divine Challenge in the v1.3 PrRC (PHB Lite), not from an official source.

I asked for comments about the text back in post 25. It was essentially written so that a paladin could not 'mark and run away'. I don't think there is anything wrong with a paladin marking an enemy that is cowering behind enemy lines, and then striding across the battlefield to the best of his ability towards that enemy. Nothing says the marked enemy can't stand there and wait for the paladin to arrive - he won't take any damage in the meantime, even if he is slowed and engaged with the fighter as long as he doesn't attack. And an enemy that flees or flies away wont take damage either, since the enemy only takes damage if he attacks someone other than the paladin . If the slowed hobgoblin 5 squares away chooses to attack the fighter because he can't reach the paladin, that is the hobgoblin's choice, and he'll take the damage for it. The range is only 5 squares to begin with, so it isn't like you are going to have paladins marking enemies across a huge field, and then calmly walking towards the enemy.

Forcing the paladin to make a melee attack to mark isn't a bad idea, but it is significantly different from what was shown at DDXP. It makes it harder for the paladin to "pull" enemies off allies at range.

I'm certainly open to changing the text in the next revision. Go ahead and suggest some text and if there is general consensus I'll change it.

 

[Xorn]

Verys Arkon, you're dead on--anything we speculate about how it's going to be fixed is just that, speculation.

I'm guilty of using the wrong word here, I should have written, "I really hope the mark change will involve" instead of what I put, but that's what I meant. As we've been doing fan playtest/demos for the last three weeks, it's easy to start typing in past tense about mechanics.

Forcing the paladin to make a melee attack to mark isn't a bad idea, but forcing the paladin to try to engage the target isn't a bad idea, either. I agree that the spirit of the challenge (which requires a minor action, it's not automatic) actually is better served by the PrRC current text. All we've gotten out of Wizard's is "you have to Paladin up" and "it still works the same".

So while the current text is a little muddy (for the scenarios described above) it's not a bad ruling. In my last dragon fight, Nightscale flies out to her isle, marked by the paladin, separating them with deep water. The paladin is chucking throwing hammers at the dragon, and moving around the lake edge to where the shallow water gets closer to the dragon. But technically, the square he made it to was farther away than the one he started in.

Under the PrRC rule, the DM has to make a judgement call--which isn't bad, but for a situation that could come up a lot, this doesn't feel very 4E, where judgement calls are reserved for rare (read: kick ass) things, and the everyday is clearly defined. But I can't say it's wrong--it just feels clunky. (Let's not discuss Marking clunkiness though, LOL!)

Under my rule, the mark fades--as he didn't make a melee attack. Now on the next turn, as long as he gets within range, he can re-mark the target (can't "re-mark" him when the mark is still up). My idea for this came from the other marks (which involve attacking) and the concept behind marking (this ferocious warrior is all over you, and a distracting threat). It feels very clean--there's no much interpretation occurring here; either you make a melee attack, or you don't. But at the same time, this grants the enemy the ability to cower from the target, or even escape the mark.

But yes, both rules are pure speculation.

In the end, I think the PrRC rule is going to be closer to the 4E rules, but it will be a clean definition.

The more I think about it the less I like my rule now--simply because it gives a creature the ability to escape the mark by running away--even if it requires great effort.

But I don't want a warrior with a longbow marking a creature 40 squares away with a longbow either, even if the situation will probably never occur. So that's why I liked the idea of making melee attacks.

Either way, this is a great discussion, and while all we have the ability to do is speculate (unless a kind soul at Wizards wants to finally solve this for us all ) at least this is some entertaining speculation.

EDIT - Oh, and I don't know what the cleaner wording for the PrRC rule would be. "To the best of his ability" regarding getting to the target gets cloudy when you start thinking about OAs, for instance. If an approach involves an OA, or a swimming check, etc--that's where the judgement calls come in, and for a mechanic that will be utilized every fight (if not every round) I don't want that rule to be opaque.

 

[Verys Arkon]

Verys Arkon, you're dead on--anything we speculate about how it's going to be fixed is just that, speculation.

.....

EDIT - Oh, and I don't know what the cleaner wording for the PrRC rule would be. "To the best of his ability" regarding getting to the target gets cloudy when you start thinking about OAs, for instance. If an approach involves an OA, or a swimming check, etc--that's where the judgement calls come in, and for a mechanic that will be utilized every fight (if not every round) I don't want that rule to be opaque.

Indeed, I wish we could get something more official too. I hate ambiguity in rules as well, and I completely agree that the 'fix' text leaves it open to interpretation. I didn't want to 'make-up' something too concrete, knowing it would end up being wrong, and opted for something that, at the very least, signals to players that they aren't going to get away with cheese! I encourage DMs to house rule the house rule! Its not like PrRC is any more authoritative (just 'peer reviewed').

 

[Lord Sessadore]

-- I apologize, this got far longer than I intended.

Just a thought on whether or not the Paladin should have to pursue his challenged opponent - is there a need for the Paladin to have a hard-wired reason to go walking into traps?

I would imagine that the challenge would work 100% if the paladin is standing in an area accessible to whomever he is challenging, not fleeing, and not engaging another creature. In other words, as long as he's issuing a challenge and not fighting someone else, and the challenged has opportunity and ability to reach the paladin.

I'm not sure the mark should require the paladin to go swimming in subterranean dragon-lair lakes in full plate. Neither do I think that the mark should require a similarly heavily armored challengee to do similar things. Marking the dragon, who flew to her little island, and challenging her to come meet you on even ground - that seems like a challenge to me.

I don't think a "challenge" should mean "I'm gonna chase you down if you don't stand still and fight me". It should mean "Come here, you scoundrel, and I'll show you fighting!" He's a paladin. Challenge them to an honourable duel, not to a game of tag where the paladin is 'it'.

 

[Xorn]

-- I apologize, this got far longer than I intended.

Just a thought on whether or not the Paladin should have to pursue his challenged opponent - is there a need for the Paladin to have a hard-wired reason to go walking into traps?

I would imagine that the challenge would work 100% if the paladin is standing in an area accessible to whomever he is challenging, not fleeing, and not engaging another creature. In other words, as long as he's issuing a challenge and not fighting someone else, and the challenged has opportunity and ability to reach the paladin.

I'm not sure the mark should require the paladin to go swimming in subterranean dragon-lair lakes in full plate. Neither do I think that the mark should require a similarly heavily armored challengee to do similar things. Marking the dragon, who flew to her little island, and challenging her to come meet you on even ground - that seems like a challenge to me.

I don't think a "challenge" should mean "I'm gonna chase you down if you don't stand still and fight me". It should mean "Come here, you scoundrel, and I'll show you fighting!" He's a paladin. Challenge them to an honourable duel, not to a game of tag where the paladin is 'it'.

Well said! And that feels like, "Forcing them to paladin up!" as well! Now how do you word the power so that's the only interpretation? For instance, if the paladin challenges a kobold dragonshield in the back rank (who's say, attacking a ranger) to face him, but the dragonshield has to run around the fighting to get to the paladin, I don't mind the paladin crushing a kobold minion's head in while he's waiting.

And suppose the only avenue to attack the paladin happens to have the fighter ready to immobilize the dragonshield. Now he's TRYING to get to the paladin--but someone is interfering--shouldn't Tymora be just as pissed about that and hit the fighter for 8 damage? Stay out of the way of their duel, damnit!

I think we're all in agreement on what the power should do--only coming up with the wording for it (especially since it will likely not be what we thought at release) is aggrovating. For now, I'll just say, "Paladin up!" and leave it at that.

I really don't like the idea of a warrior marking someone with arrows from across the room, either. I think that's why I had the melee slant on things.